Docket: 2006-3768(GST)G
BETWEEN:
1010034 ONTARIO LIMITED,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
____________________________________________________________________
Motion
heard together with the Motion in
4059654 Canada Limited (2006-3769(GST)G)
on February 17, 2009 at Toronto, Ontario
Before: The Honourable
Justice Theodore E. Margeson
Appearances:
|
Counsel for the Appellant:
|
Eli
Pullan
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Margaret J. Nott
|
____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
Upon reading the Notice of Motion and other
supporting material;
And upon hearing from counsel for the
Appellant and counsel for the Respondent;
The motion is granted with respect to the
consolidation order and it is hereby ordered that these matters be consolidated
under section 26 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure).
In all other respects the motion is dismissed.
There will be no costs on the motion.
Signed at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 3rd
day of March 2009.
“T. E. Margeson”
Docket: 2006-3769(GST)G
BETWEEN:
4059654 CANADA LIMITED,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
____________________________________________________________________
Motion heard together with the Motion in
1010034 Ontario Limited (2006-3768(GST)G)
on February 17, 2009 at Toronto, Ontario
Before: The Honourable Justice Theodore E.
Margeson
Appearances:
|
Counsel for the
Appellant:
|
Eli Pullan
|
|
Counsel for the
Respondent:
|
Margaret J. Nott
|
____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
Upon reading the Notice of Motion and other
supporting material;
And upon hearing from counsel for the
Appellant and counsel for the Respondent;
The motion is granted with respect to the
consolidation order and it is hereby ordered that these matters be consolidated
under section 26 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure).
In all other respects the motion is dismissed.
There will be no costs on the motion.
Signed at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 3rd day
of March 2009.
“T. E. Margeson”
Citation: 2009TCC123
Date: 20090303
Docket: 2006-3768(GST)G
BETWEEN:
1010034 ONTARIO LIMITED,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent,
Docket: 2006-3769(GST)G
AND BETWEEN:
4059654 CANADA LIMITED,
Appellant,
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
Margeson J.
[1] The Appellants by way of Notice of Motion
dated January 20, 2009 asked for the following relief:
1.
an Order under section
26 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) (“Rules”)
consolidating the appeals herein;
2.
an Order under section
58 of the Rules setting down the appeals
herein for a hearing to determine four questions of law, fact or mixed law and
fact raised by the pleadings in these matters (the Rule 58 Hearing);
3.
an Order under section
67 of the Rules directing the Respondent to answer proper questions
asked at the examination for discovery of its nominee, and to answer proper
questions arising from answers previously provided; and
4.
an Order under section
82 of the Rules directing that the Respondent shall file and serve on
the Appellants a list of all the documents which are or have been in the
Respondent’s possession, control or power relating to any matter in question
between or among them in the appeal (full disclosure).
[2] After hearing argument by both counsel, the
Court is satisfied that these two matters should be consolidated, the motion in
that regard is granted and the appeals are consolidated under section 26 of the
Rules.
[3] With respect to the application for an
order under section 58 of the Rules the Court is not satisfied that the
Appellant has satisfied the requirements of that Rule.
[4] The Court is satisfied that the matter is
going to proceed to trial in any event and there are a number of matters that
would require the giving of evidence before a Court would be in position to
answer the questions posed. This Court is not convinced that the proceeding
would be substantially shortened if the Appellant were to succeed in obtaining
an order under section 58 of the Rules. The motion in that regard is
dismissed.
[5] With respect to the application for an
order under section 97 of the Rules directing the Respondent to answer
certain questions arising out of the examinations of discovery, the Court is
not satisfied that the Appellant has made out a proper case for such an order.
At first blush it would appear to the Court that the Respondent has complied
with the rules of discovery.
[6] The motion in that regard is dismissed.
[7] With respect to the motion, regarding
section 82 of the Rules, the Court is not satisfied that an order for
full disclosure is necessary. Some of the matters referred to by counsel for
the Appellant would raise the prospect of him “going on a fishing trip” so to
speak. The Court is satisfied that only relevant documents need be disclosed
and that appears to have been done.
[8] The motion in that regard is dismissed.
[9] Both parties have been somewhat successful
so there will be no costs on the motions.
Signed at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 3rd day of March 2009.
“T. E. Margeson”
CITATION: 2009TCC123
COURT FILE NO.: 2006-3768(GST)G, 2006-3769(GST)G
STYLE OF CAUSE: 1010034 ONTARIO LIMITED AND THE QUEEN, 4059654 CANADA LIMITED
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto,
Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: February 17, 2009
REASONS FOR ORDER
BY: The Honourable Justice T. E. Margeson
DATE OF ORDER: March 3, 2009
APPEARANCES:
|
Counsel for the
Appellant:
|
Eli Pullan
|
|
Counsel for the
Respondent:
|
Margaret J. Nott
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name: Eli Pullan
Firm: Benson
Percival Brown LLP
For the
Respondent: John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa,
Canada
Email this Content